This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[Porkpie Hat]

Actually, if you can point me to one person or report who even remotely tries to explain what happened to the core steel columns in WTC 1 & 2...I will admit that I am a fool. That's all you people have to do. Come on, there's like 50 of you out there. That will close the case for good.

I hate to rain on your parade(s) but steel-structured skyscrapers don't just crumble to the ground because a fire plus/minus some minor EXTERIOR damage. Where's the critical-thinking when you need it. Doh!

And, just in case I forget...I love all of you beautiful people.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Appendix L
L–32
The 5 s to 6 s delay between the failure of the east penthouse and the failure of the screenwall and west
penthouse (shown in Fig. L–27) approximates the time it would take for the debris pile from the vertical
failure progression on the east side of the building to reach Floors 5 to 7 and damage the transfer trusses
and girders in this area.
A kink developed in the north facade approximately where column 76 projects to the north face. The
kink may have formed in the plane of the north facade or it may represent a displacement in the structure
along this line towards the south. The area of this kink correlates to the easternmost cantilever transfer at
Floor 7. All of the Floor 7 cantilever transfer girders had back spans supported along the line of the north
core columns, of which the easternmost one was supported by truss # 1. This north facade kink also
coincides with the girders at the eastern edge of the cooling tower area at Floor 46.
When the screenwall and the west penthouse sank into the building, a line of windows broke from
Floor 44 down to the bottom of the visible range, which is approximately at Floor 33 on the west side of
the structure (see Fig. L–27). This area aligns with column 61, which is supported by the cantilevered
end of transfer truss #3 between Floors 5 and 7, as shown in Fig. L–31. This suggests Appendix L
L–32
The 5 s to 6 s delay between the failure of the east penthouse and the failure of the screenwall and west
penthouse (shown in Fig. L–27) approximates the time it would take for the debris pile from the vertical
failure progression on the east side of the building to reach Floors 5 to 7 and damage the transfer trusses
and girders in this area.
A kink developed in the north facade approximately where column 76 projects to the north face. The
kink may have formed in the plane of the north facade or it may represent a displacement in the structure
along this line towards the south. The area of this kink correlates to the easternmost cantilever transfer at
Floor 7. All of the Floor 7 cantilever transfer girders had back spans supported along the line of the north
core columns, of which the easternmost one was supported by truss # 1. This north facade kink also
coincides with the girders at the eastern edge of the cooling tower area at Floor 46.
When the screenwall and the west penthouse sank into the building, a line of windows broke from
Floor 44 down to the bottom of the visible range, which is approximately at Floor 33 on the west side of
the structure (see Fig. L–27). This area aligns with column 61, which is supported by the cantilevered
end of transfer truss #3 between Floors 5 and 7, as shown in Fig. L–31. This suggests that the observed
window breakage may be related to the failure of column 61 or truss #3.

The people who wrote this don't watch you tube so its kinda dry reading.

Also check out figures L-33 and L-34 for a pictorial summary of the collapse sequence.

When you can prove this is bs without using you tube and conspiracy jargon (ie actual science!) someone here may start listening to you.

ps. If you don't understand what it says, go back to playing with your toys.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Speaking of I'm thinking of withdrawing my generous invitation to 28K. His more recent posts, where he expressed utter disbelief that we could possibly believe the "official version" reeked of a familiar poster. Pardalis and others were right.

-Gumboot

Wow,

Do you see what just happened? I gave you what you wanted, and now you avoid my question. I don't understand the game you are trying to play. If everyone just answers my questions, I promise we will get somewhere. Think about it...all of you just have to reply to one simple question...pretty easy. I'm over here trying to reply to 100 different things from 50 different people. Please, everyone just focus, on my one question and we'll be well upon our way.

 

[Quad4_72]

Please post which question you want specifically answered. I will answer it for you.

 

[gumboot]

Wow,

Do you see what just happened? I gave you what you wanted, and now you avoid my question. I don't understand the game you are trying to play. If everyone just answers my questions, I promise we will get somewhere. Think about it...all of you just have to reply to one simple question...pretty easy. I'm over here trying to reply to 100 different things from 50 different people. Please, everyone just focus, on my one question and we'll be well upon our way.

Yes, sorry, what is the question? The 3 pieces of evidence one?

-Gumboot

 

[Bell]

Wow,

Do you see what just happened? I gave you what you wanted, and now you avoid my question. I don't understand the game you are trying to play. If everyone just answers my questions, I promise we will get somewhere. Think about it...all of you just have to reply to one simple question...pretty easy. I'm over here trying to reply to 100 different things from 50 different people. Please, everyone just focus, on my one question and we'll be well upon our way.

We're not gonna play your stupid games. Make your freaking point allready.

 

[28th Kingdom]

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

The people who wrote this don't watch you tube so its kinda dry reading.

Also check out figures L-33 and L-34 for a pictorial summary of the collapse sequence.

When you can prove this is bs without using you tube and conspiracy jargon (ie actual science!) someone here may start listening to you.

ps. If you don't understand what it says, go back to playing with your toys.

Hello Cowboy,

I see a lot of, 'may' or 'may haves' which signal a conjecture if I've ever seen one...and yet I still don't see an explanation as to what took down the core columns.

 

[stateofgrace]

Okay, now you're not even trying to hide it.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=974

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/9490457867329d6d2.jpg

In case people are banned from LC , here is what PD said in an opening thread.

Right this thread is long overdue.

I want just skeptics to answer please.

Imagine you are in a court and you have to show a neutral Jury 3 pieces of proof to convince them beyond a reasonable doubt that the official story is true.

What are the three things

28th, you are not Pdoherty76 are you ?

We are being totally honest here are we not; I mean everybody is being absolutely honest with one another are they not ?

It is not possible that you are IN FACT Pdoherty76 who has been banned from here six times now ?

You can be honest now because you will be banned for a seventh time very soon.

Bye bye

 

[gumboot]

Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

I'm going to assume this is your next question.

1) Photographic and eye-witness evidence as captured by the NYPD aviation unit
2) Eye-witness information as captured by the FDNY inside the towers
3) Eye-witness information as captured on 9-1-1 calls from people trapped inside the buildings.

Next?

-Gumboot

 

[28th Kingdom]

Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Okay, so in the documented history of steel-structured skyscapers like the WTC towers...there has NEVER (I'm just letting you know, so you don't have to look it up) There has NEVER been a steel-structured skyscraper, that has COMPLETELY collapsed into it's footprint by virtue of a FIRE.
...
So with all of your critical thinking and analyzes...you will conclude, that although a steel-structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire in the history of the world....that three of them just happened to do that on the very same day in the same event? Odds of that happening? Well, you must not be a very prolific critical-thinker...because, once you clear out all of the, "Well, the government would never do that...It would be all over the news etc." from your analysis...there is NO WAY, that anyone could weigh all the data about the actual collapses of the three buildings...and say that, yes...FIRE is what brought them all down.

[december 8th, 1903] In the documented history of travel, there has NEVER (look it up!) been a heavier-than-air craft. So with your critical thinking skills, what are the odds that yesterday's "flight" actually happened? Once you clear out all of the Wright brothers' claims and newspaper reports from your analysis, there is NO WAY that anyone could fly. [/december 8th, 1903]

AW,

You are right. WTC 1 & 2 didn't fall like WTC 7(typical CD) now did they? They were taken down differently. If you will notice...WTC 1 & 2 aren't actually collapsing floor by floor. That's an illusion. Actually, the floors are just being blown up floor by floor, starting at the impact point...and then moving down.

So the pre-set explosives at the impact point survived the hit of a jetliner and the subsequent fire?

Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

1) A plane hit them.
2) They were on fire.
3) I watched them fall.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

28th, when someone with more knowledge than myself answers your question (Which will most certainly not be done to your satisfaction), please do this for me:

Show me ONE freaking 110 building hit by a fuel-laden 757 that didn't collapse after burning for more than an hour. Just show me ONE of those.

Then, show me any building greater than 40 stories high that was hit by debris from one of the worlds 10 tallest buildings falling in close proximity, which subsequently burned for a good part of an afternoon, that didn't ultimately collapse. ANY BUILDING that meets those criteria will do. ANY ONE. Just show me ONE of those. .

Then maybe I'll start to doubt the official, most scientifically verifiable, accepted-by-the-majority-of-structural-engineers-throughout-the-world story.

Should be easy, one would think.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

That's an illusion. Actually, the floors are just being blown up floor by floor, starting at the impact point...and then moving down.

If you truly believe this, you are an (fill in expletive) idiot.

 

[maccy]

Maccy,

Please just boil it down for me. What does this GOVERNMENT agency say happened to the core columns? It's doesn't take 1000 pages. Can you please just lay it out in a paragraph?

Also, does everyone agree, that WTC 1 & 2 came down in some sort of pancake collapse? Yes or No will do. I know the actual details may be more complex, but the end result is a pancake collapse, yes?

Thanks.

I'm not going to attempt a summary or answer your pancake question. If you aren't prepared to do the reading, why should anybody take you seriously?

For reference the whole of the document you were referred to is 470 pages long, not 1000.

The relevant section (section 9) is 44 pages long.

The specific part of that section that deals with probably collapse sequences (section 9.3) is 23 pages long.

Not a lot to read really.

As for putting GOVERNMENT in CAPS, I feel I have to post this once more:

Ummm, huh?

So the hundreds of NIST scientists involved in producing the WTC reports decide to spend all of their available time making up numbers to fit a thesis the administrators have told them is correct, but they know is false. Throwing their professional careers and reputations to the wind, they support a theory intended to cover up a mass murder plot by the federal government for which they have no culpability. They're motivated to do so because, well, they're all evil people who enjoy murder, and want to take every opportunity to stick it to the American people. They're also all fiercely loyal to the Bush Administration because they respect him as an intellectual.

But then someone realizes that they need to contract some of the work out in order to make the research more credible. So they contact dozens of agencies, researchers, professionals and experts in both the US and Canada. Hey, it might have been easier to keep all of the data in house, but no one will know as long as NIST has the final word on the matter.

So NIST holds numerous public forums and scientific conferences where they present the data to the public. They publish a draft report and subject it to the Washington Editorial Review Bord (WERB) so that numerous independent researchers can review the work. No one finds any errors because they were paid by the administration not to find any.

The researchers, meanwhile, are proud that they could do their part to support the war in Iraq that they all so desperately wanted. I don't know if you realize this, but most scientists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist, right-wing conservatives, so they have no problem with the wholesale murder of their fellow citizens as well as the numerous citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, they've been paid off pretty heavily. But fortunately, none of them retired and left NIST to go buy million dollar homes in Georgetown or Alexandria. Talk about a red flag to the IRS!

Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?

 

[Pardalis]

Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

In my very layman opinion:

1) the towers suffered heavy damage from the plane impacts
2) the subsequent fires were intense
3) the NIST engeneers are experts at this and I have no reason to believe they lied.

Good enough?

 

[A W Smith]

Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell

!) the fact that tower one isnt there anymore

2) the fact that tower two isnt there anymore

3) the fact that WTC7 isnt there anymore. well ok I lied its back now. But it sure looks different!

 

[Anti-sophist]

There was another guy who used to hang around here who posted as fast as furiously as you.. he was also kind of obsessed with asking people for their top3 pieces of evidence...

That's alot of coincidences.

Keep in mind, I'm not accusing you of being Pdoh. I don't know what to believe. I'm just asking questions.

 

[milesalpha]

While he's at it, he could name one (1) top down controlled demolition. I don't expect much, for a guy who was going blow us all away with his evidence, he has simply asked the same silly questions heard a 1000 times before and posted a few youtube videos, the typical ct evidence that would be laughed out of any court or academic forum.

 

[beachnut]

Sir,

Can you please link me to this? .

nist wtc 9/11 are the key words to use in Google

type in your key words: nist wtc 9/11

NIST is there!

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

or you can find the one he said by searching for it!

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

but you can just go to the page

Thought you read this and knew you had proof of your nut case ideas.

 

[gumboot]

[december 8th, 1903] In the documented history of travel, there has NEVER (look it up!) been a heavier-than-air craft. So with your critical thinking skills, what are the odds that yesterday's "flight" actually happened? Once you clear out all of the Wright brothers' claims and newspaper reports from your analysis, there is NO WAY that anyone could fly. [/december 8th, 1903]

Not true. Richard Pearse had a heavier-than-air craft prior to December 8th 1903.



It is an ironic point you make however, since, in the US, a "Fliers or Liars?" debate raged for some time after Kitty Hawk, with many people not believing them. This forced the Wright Brothers to make their better documented high-profile public demonstrations.

-Gumboot

 

[maccy]

Hello Cowboy,

I see a lot of, 'may' or 'may haves' which signal a conjecture if I've ever seen one...and yet I still don't see an explanation as to what took down the core columns.

The explanation is there, but at this point it's still a working hypothesis so they have to use qualifiers.

Once the draft version of the final report is published in the spring we'll have more definite answers. This report will also test the plausibility of various hypothetical blast scenarios. I predict that they will find that controlled demolition couldn't have been the cause.